Welcome to the Muscle & Strength Forums! Here you can learn about how to build muscle, burn fat, increase strength, and reach your health and fitness goals. Joining M&S is free, and only takes about 30 seconds! Click here to register!

Cardio- neccesary for fat loss?

I was wondering if you guys could take a look at this article and tell me what you think. It really changed my opinion... I'm wanting to stop doing cardio, besides maybe a couple days a week of LIT (for my heart's sake) and wanted to get some opinions on this before I take the leap, as I've currently been doing LIT cardio for 30 minutes everyday. My idea is to basically just do a hell of a lot more strength training and eat 500 calories below maintenence. This is an intresting tid-bit from the article... the link is below.

"30 minutes of steady state cardio will burn about 300 calories. Three times per week – 900 calories. Add that up for 26 weeks and we get a whopping: 23,400 calories, or in real terms, 6.6 lbs of fat- in six months! Hardly slimmer of the year material! If doing the cardio fasted, burned 30% more calories (which it doesn’t, but lets say it does for the purpose of making it seem better than it really is!), you’re looking at another 2lbs of fat in that same six month period, or an additional 0.07 pounds per week.
Fat people finish marathons all the time. Aerobic training doesn’t do a hell of a lot for real world fat loss. Even if you’re hungry. Luckily, restricted calorie intake coupled with progressive resistance exercise does.
Studies have estimated that for each pound of muscle that you add to your body, you burn an additional 40 to 70 calories per day. So, an extra 10 pounds of muscle will burn approximately 400 to 700 calories a day, or an extra pound of fat every 5 to 9 days, without making any other changes. That is 72,000-126,000 calories. In another study, researchers found that regular weight training boosts basal metabolic rate by about 15%. This is because muscle is ‘metabolically active ‘ and burns more calories than other body tissue even when you’re not moving. So if you add 10lbs of muscle to your frame, hardly a massive amount- just over half a stone, you will be burning 20-36lbs of fat in six months, compared to the 6.6-8.6lbs of fat that you would burn with 3 half hour cardio sessions per week.
An intense session of cardiovascular exercise will burn around 300 calories, depending on the individual. The calorie counter on the machine may say it’s more, but don’t even get me started on why those things are wrong! Armed with this information, why should you pound the treadmill or exercise bike for 30 minutes, working yourself into a sweaty mess, when you can simply drop those calories from your daily intake? You will notice almost no difference in your daily food intake and can spend the extra 30 minutes working on building that vital calorie-burning muscle!"

Giving your body more fuel and making it burn more is preferential as it will help to keep your metabolism high. Eating more also means less cravings making it more likely that you stick to your diet. Don't get me wrong, I dislike cardio just as much as the next lifter but if it means I can eat more and still lose weight, I'll do it

Basic idea of what we do on this site.
Eat under your BMR - loss fat
Eat over your BMR - gain muscle.
While losing fat your bound to lose a litlte muscle and when you are gaining muscle you are bound to gain a little fat.

Now, the article says to put on 10 pounds of muscle. So for that amount of time that you are putting on that muscle you aren't losing any fat (this is all assuming you arent' a complete beginner). So as you put on that muscle you'll put on some fat as well. Probably a pound or two. So now your up 11 or 12 pounds over your original weight. So now you burn more calories per day. Now what? Eat less. Ok. So are you still going off of your BMR? Cause that would scale with the muscle you just gained.

Overall what I'm really trying to say is to burn fat you have to eat under your BMR. This article makes it sound like you can burn fat while gaining muscle which, if you ask anyone on this site, the answer is that you can't do it. So do you HAVE to do cardio? Probably not. Is there really a reason not to though?

Since cardio will tend to eat away at both muscle and fat... I just don't see the point for my personal goals. Strength training will take care of my muscles as well as up the overall calories which I burn, even when I'm not exercising. Whereas with cardio, unless you're doing HITT, you're pretty much only burning calories while you're actually exercising. My main goal is stictly losing fat, not to gain muscle. I already have a good amount of muscle and just want to maintain it- which will also keep my metabolic rate high. It just seems that cardio is somewhat counterproductive in that aspect. At the end of the day, its calories in: calories out... so doing a half hour of LIT cardio in which I only burn for that half hour (all of 300 calories... some from fat some from muscle), seems pointless in terms of fat loss (unless I've overeaten that day). If I solely strength train (increase heart rate throughout the entire day and promote muscle maintenence) as well as eat a calorie deficit of 500 (which I would have to eat back anyway if I burned that much through LIT, for example)... wouldn't that be the golden ticket?

I hope that this clears up the issue once and for all! I don’t wish to say that cardio does not have its place- it does. What I am trying to establish is that for fat loss, weight training and controlled nutrition is a much better option. If you want to be a better runner, then cardio is for you! If you want to be leaner, try the weights approach.

The take home points:
1. Dietary manipulation is the most important for fat loss
2. Weight training gives you the "best bang for your buck"
3. Don't overdo the cardio - intensity and duration

However, eventually you are going to hit a certain point, where cutting calories can become problematic from a practical stand point. In this situation, it may be more more sensible to add more "activity" - whether that be tennis, walking on the beach, swimming or plain old cardio.

However, eventually you are going to hit a certain point, where cutting calories can become problematic from a practical stand point. In this situation, it may be more more sensible to add more "activity" - whether that be tennis, walking on the beach, swimming or plain old cardio.

I don't think I was taking the article out of context. All three of those take home points was what I took home. Sorry if I didn't express that efficiently. But from those take home points I feel confident that for my goals of fat loss, dietary manipulation and weight training are going to get me where I want to be.

I don't think I was taking the article out of context. All three of those take home points was what I took home. Sorry if I didn't express that efficiently. But from those take home points I feel confident that for my goals of fat loss, dietary manipulation and weight training are going to get me where I want to be.

You have to ask yourself "how much fat have I got to lose" , "What body fat percentage do I want to get down to" and "how long will it take me to lose it".

For the past 3 weeks or so, i've turned off all cardio. Been doing heavy weight training every other day, 45 minutes about and i do feel good. I can sense overall improvements. I kind of wish i could determine my bf% so that i could measure it every so often.

Anyway my point is, it seems to work. BUT.....at the same time i did a massive nutrition overhaul. Either way you should probably try it out all the same. I like the routine, and sure beats hitting the gym 6 days a week (alternating cardio and weight training each day, with bad nutrition habits). I was doing that for at least a couple years.

I've also been doing ALOT of reading, namely e-books. I try to consciously collect how many facts they promote and have in common. Somethings do tend to appear to remain constant. As for cardio, some advocate it (for serious fat loss) and some don't (for thin guys trying to build muscle). I'm on the fence about cardio right now.....i might return to it, not sure.

I'm sticking to a 500 deficit for the next while with honest weight training and i still make decent gains in strength and muscle, and i'm feeling ok about the weight loss. Weighed myself in the gym the 1st time in a while and was surprised to see i'm almost at 205 pounds. I thought i was 220 for the longest time.

Two points- LIT cardio doesn't burn muscle. Whoever wrote that is mistaken. Also, the article cites thirty minutes of LIT. Of course you won't lose much doin that, which is why 45-60 is recommended. The article itself seems to me to be an excuse for people to lazy to do cardio. -EK

i fell like when i'm working out for about 40 minute. i hit to the cardio exercise for another 300 calorie.. i can fell like my muscle are not improving.. pls help on this. do i keep doing cardio exercise after my workout?

i fell like when i'm working out for about 40 minute. i hit to the cardio exercise for another 300 calorie.. i can fell like my muscle are not improving.. pls help on this. do i keep doing cardio exercise after my workout?

What is your training routine at the moment?

Also dont forget that the nutrition side of training is also very important for muscle gain..

Why do Workout A, when you can effectively burn the same amount of calories doing Workout B?

Essentially, yes. And with Workout B, you wouldn't be losing both muscle and fat. Since I'm cutting, I'm probably not going to be gaining any muscle, but at least I won't be eating away at it, and will be working to maintain it. I'm not going to lie... although Workout B makes more sense for fat loss and maintaining muscle imo, I'm definitely also trying to support the idea because of how much I passionately hate cardio

Two points- LIT cardio doesn't burn muscle. Whoever wrote that is mistaken. Also, the article cites thirty minutes of LIT. Of course you won't lose much doin that, which is why 45-60 is recommended. The article itself seems to me to be an excuse for people to lazy to do cardio. -EK

Some people may take it as an excuse, but I just want facts. If you have some arguments as to why strength training isn't just as good as cardio, in terms of fat lost, I'm all ears. I just want to know what's going to work best, and the article made some good points. Bottom-line though, I'm not going to spend an hour a day doing LIT, burning calories only for that hour... when I could just strength train for that same hour... and be burning calories during it as well as hours and hours after I'm done. Its really being smart rather than lazy... more bang for your buck.

You have to ask yourself "how much fat have I got to lose" , "What body fat percentage do I want to get down to" and "how long will it take me to lose it".

At the end of the day its calories in calories out. If I'm correct, you shouldn't make a deficit of more than 500 cals below your BMR per day (although I wish it could be more!). So why does it matter if you get that calorie deficit from cardio and diet vs. strength training and diet? It seems that there is really no difference... am I missing something?

At the end of the day its calories in calories out. If I'm correct, you shouldn't make a deficit of more than 500 cals below your BMR per day (although I wish it could be more!). So why does it matter if you get that calorie deficit from cardio and diet vs. strength training and diet? It seems that there is really no difference... am I missing something?

That's logical, i'd like to know some reasoning behind that too.

I like the new no-cardio routine, and i don't object to the idea of returning to it if i see reason for it, other than the demands on my schedule since it would require me at the gym6 days a week. I did that before, and it takes effort and commitment to negotiate a schedule for it.

Some people may take it as an excuse, but I just want facts. If you have some arguments as to why strength training isn't just as good as cardio, in terms of fat lost, I'm all ears. I just want to know what's going to work best, and the article made some good points. Bottom-line though, I'm not going to spend an hour a day doing LIT, burning calories only for that hour... when I could just strength train for that same hour... and be burning calories during it as well as hours and hours after I'm done. Its really being smart rather than lazy... more bang for your buck.

It's not more "bang for your buck," it's lazy. Strength training may burn calories, but they are not fat calories. Strength training utilizes a metabolic pathway called glycolosis, and because it is primarily anaerobic, burns little or no fat. LIT cardio utilizes a different part of the Krebbs cycle called lipolysis. Because you have to have oxygen present for lipolysis to occur, you are not going to efficiently burn fat doing strength training alone. That article is an isolated document that points out how thirty minutes of LIT is not a good way to burn fat. As I have already pointed out, studies agree that 45-60 minutes daily is needed to efficiently accomplish fat loss. So, "bottom-line" is that if you want the million dollar body, you need to invest more than a ninety-nine cent routine. Your results will reflect the amount of effort you put into your workouts, and strength training alone is not enough of an investment to seriously drop body fat. -EK

So, "bottom-line" is that if you want the million dollar body, you need to invest more than a ninety-nine cent routine. Your results will reflect the amount of effort you put into your workouts, and strength training alone is not enough of an investment to seriously drop body fat. -EK